"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Monday, 25 January 2016

As a therapist personal responsibility is a main foundation of my work. Carl Rogers, the founder of person centred therapy, created the seven point ladder of blaming others for everything in your life to taking full responsibility. Even if there are societal prejudices against one or more aspects of your self, this is not an excuse to fail or give up and carry the weight of the blaming for the rest of your life, but to know your abilities and push yourself over and over again till you succeed. Concepts of privilege simply point out we all start from somewhere different, but that should not stop anyone in a free country which stops discrimination by law from getting wherever they are capable of getting, female, black, disabled or gay should really not be a barrier.

Politics reinforces this sense of blame by inventing concepts taken from far left sociology and Marxism, which claim each social group begins the race with a handicap which inevitable makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to succeed purely based on who they are. Such delusions are the main reasons people come for counselling, and the purpose of it is to stop looking outwards at others and inwards to what you have to offer. It is the same as the parents who constantly compare their children with others, despite the fact no two individuals, even twins, are the same, and although everyone should be treated equal each is uniquely different and simply cannot perform the same as anyone else. This is all backed up with science and not open for discussion except the ways society can either restrict or improve an individual from completing their potential.

If you believe anything strongly enough you will then go on to both act as if it was true, and persuade others to accept it as well. But this is only a contagious mass delusion, and just because most people believe it never makes it right. Entire political parties and movements are built on such delusions, the imaginary view that even though such laws have changed society is still against blacks, gays and women. And even if there is prejudice this is not a reason for anyone to fail where they have the talent to succeed. A story I heard was about how women painters were overlooked in the 19th century, and pointed out even if they signed the pictures with initials rather than their full names you see the painting first and judge it on its quality. But if women accept they cannot be accepted as painters and composers, despite it being physically impossible to know the creator unless you were told shows how easy it is to pick up such mental viruses and take them on board as if real. Just because there is a handful of genuinely prejudiced people in all societies is no reason to act as though they have any actual power. The only power they ever have is what you give them, they have none themselves.

Therefore all politics based on such ideas is both false and dangerous. It leads to strikes, riots, repressive laws and worse. However good it feels to maintain the childish views that everyone deserves equal benefits in life it is not a fair world. We are not entitled to anything we do not have, besides the basics for survival with a welfare state. Anything else is not the state's official responsibility, however many make it so. Collectivism may work for a society with nothing, but once there is a structure where people can have a safety net for the poor and incapable the rest is down to their own efforts. The fact some inherit money and others have very little is just reality and nothing to do with anyone else. Just because another person can live without working is not a reason you should take it off them to make your own life better. That is called theft in normal circumstances, while giving your family money is a personal choice however unfair it may seem to those who do not have it. The alternative of taking it for the state is the only one which is infinitely worse, and it doesn't go back to the poor, it goes into the treasury with no accountability for where it ends up ultimately.

To sum up, all politics based on false views of privilege cause nothing but problems. Social engineering has no place in a free society as we employ politicians and civil servants with our taxes and votes, and none have the right to tell us how to live. If people vote for a totalitarian law then it is the people's fault for not realising they will actually suffer from the consequences as much as the people they have targeted it at. Choking the economy will affect it all whichever organ you shut off, much the same as a human body. Without free movement of people, speech and money you are no longer living in a free country, even when people have voted to restrict the freedom. The answer is education and not more power to the people who do not understand life or politics, and always make up the majority. Until they become fully educated as to how society really works, rather than how they think it should they will rule by the power of the majority.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

I have just been asked for a full summary of global warming for new arrivals who need to know everything from A-Z and realised I didn't have one. Diagrams and links to follow

Most of the main criteria are taken from the UN IPCC reports.

The main proposition: Added CO2, from the long term average of 260ppm (parts per million) upwards, could cause an amount of associated temperature rise which may cause more problems than benefits.

The exact amounts are the existing greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (official UN figures) which say from the added 33C from the effect, the majority comes from water vapour, and 1C comes from 260ppm of CO2. If you double CO2 is should add 1C, ie 520ppm would cause 1C extra and 1040 would add 2C. The UN claim the problems (mainly from rising sea level from melting land ice, and heatwaves) would start to outweigh the known benefits (increased food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and less energy usage) at around 2C.

Of course, CO2 would need to reach 1000ppm for this to happen, which is probably impossible, as with all the fossil fuel we are currently producing we have added 140ppm since 1850. Also CO2 does not last that long in the atmosphere, dropping out after a century or less. So when the media go crazy about possible warming, they fail to point out that the temperature has risen less than 1C since 1850. The temperature never remains the same, as it rises and falls between ice ages and smaller cycles, so as we have been coming out of once since the 18th century the temperature was already rising. Doing the simple equation, the rough existing amount is around a quarter to half the actual rise of 0.8C, therefore the amount from CO2 was 0.4-0.6C. Double that and you get a mean of 1C, exactly as predicted. Not anywhere close enough to cause problems.

So in that case why did the UN think it would be such a problem? Two words, positive feedback. This is mainly from the warming evaporating more of the ocean adding more water vapour to the atmosphere which is a serious greenhouse gas. The satellites measuring it confirm that it has not increased, and corroborates the lack of positive feedback. As no delay was expected it is reasonable to say there was no positive feedback and the water vapour could just as easily increase cloud cover, which blocks the sun and reduces the temperature, which has happened to a slight degree.

The UN state you cannot attribute individual weather events to warming, and there is no agreement overall that warmer weather causes more of them, only possibly more intense events. Also until 2001 the past records showed a number of warmer average world temperatures in history, which Michael Mann single handedly wiped out with his hockey stick diagram. The UN then revised it again where the two graphs were merged and averaged out. People can still use all three as it is not possible to prove which is correct, although the fact crops were grown all over the sub-Arctic regions which require a far higher temperature proves the northern hemisphere at least was warmer. The fact they can't prove whether the entire planet was warmer shows how rough proxy methods are, even the current temperatures have recently been revised in America.

The sea level is the most direct response to temperature. In the 20th century it rose 8 inches. After an ice age it can rise hundreds of feet. The current trend for the 21st century is a few more inches than the 20th. That directly relates to a stable and minimal temperature change and is far easier to measure than the world average temperature. That was measured by proxies (indirect indicators like ice cores and tree rings) before 1850 for the world, and thermometers until 1979 when they were supplemented by satellites. These vary in every time and location and the large areas with none need to be estimated. Currently there are four main temperature collections, which are not all in agreement. They measure land, sea and atmospheric temperatures and the difference between them and a previous point (anomaly). The oldest temperature record taken directly is the 17th century Central England record which shows very little warming and is the most reliable local record. In fact it is very hard to record average temperature, which is why they prefer to use anomalies, but the inherent measurement problems never go away. Other events such as weather and jet streams etc are also caused by far too many conditions to attribute to warming or any other single area. However the one linear correlation between temperature is with sea level. There is a known (generally, not exactly as the depth is questionable) amount of land ice on the planet. This requires a specific level of warming to melt, and that in turn flows into the sea causing a specific amount of sea level rise, which again is far easier to measure than temperature, although not exact. Therefore you can draw a linear graph between temperature rise, ice melt and sea level rise. As the rate of sea level rise has barely changed since the 19th century then maybe everything else they claim is irrelevant.

To summarise, there is a finite amount of fossil fuel on the planet. As we burn it it collects in the atmosphere, causes a small amount of warming and is replaced by more currently at a faster rate than it drops out. But overall we have seen CO2 rise by 50% and the associated temperature rise is both below the crucial 2C trend and shows a total absence of feedback. The incredible range of UN temperature projections for 2100, which we will not live to see, go between 1.5 and 6C. The chance of them missing with such a huge goalmouth is low, but totally irrelevant, as even if it falls none of us can ever know. It is not scientific to produce an experiment which cannot be completed, or the range is larger than the error margin, so it fails on all counts, and the 2015 temperature has fallen below the range they made altogether. CO2 continues to increase and the temperature has barely risen for 18 years. The media and politicians don't like you knowing that or their entire claims will fall apart.

Friday, 1 January 2016

I have already described every possible type of fraud carried out by the media and politicians, and the way to see through it if you want to look is very simple. It's basically scratching the surface and doing your own research, easy now you can look on the internet, and always trace the source and double check.

Never trust a single person on face value. They may be telling the truth but if they are not how would you know if you don't check anything you're not quite sure about. For example, you read a headline that tells you man made CO2 will make the temperature rise up to 6C. Most people (I have seen the responses) accept it and read no further. If they do you usually find nothing more than the basics have been mentioned, although the essential detail here is the range of warming was 1.5 to 6C but not until 2100.

That is a typical empty formula, empty in the sense the closer you look, like at a molecule through an electron microscope, the less is there to see. Get right up and there's actually nothing there at all. The actual fact was the UN claim that due to as yet absent positive feedback conditions, a doubling or more of CO2 which can't happen till 2100 could at the very highest extreme add 6C to the existing average world temperature, but the trend is closer to 2C which is probably harmless.

Before the internet checking these simple facts was very hard so they could get away with it every time, but now everyone simply needs to look it up. The same goes for every global warming claim which are all exactly the same in that they all disappear on closer inspection, as it's a tiny change which has been whipped up to a bodiless froth that looks huge and real till you touch it.

So the same principle applies to all claims made by those without actual evidence. They may well add some examples to apparently qualify their statements, but compared to what you need to pass an exam or win a case they are nothing. Like using local weather to demonstrate global warming. It only works as most people treat nearly all claims made by those in authority as equal without any questioning. Once you start scratching the surface it becomes a habit and the system's lost you. If even 20% of people did this the knowledge would spread among enough others to overthrow the system entirely.

Using old examples, people still believe the value of their own house rising is good, even when their own children can't afford to buy, or they now need two incomes to buy a house themselves when their parents only ever needed one till the 90s. Of course when they want to move to a better area and despite their own house going up £300,000 discover the ones they wanted went up by £500,000 and they are now £200,000 short or so as a few years ago the difference was only £100,000 less which they could now have afforded, as however much their house goes up the better ones go up even more, so get further and further away as prices rise in unison. And of course first time buyers are reduced by every 1% the prices go up as that excludes another income band ad infinitum. Only people with spare houses can sell them for a profit and keep the money, the rest are like gold teeth, sell them and you need another to replace them, there is no profit as it's not a liquid asset, but the idiots fuelling all three party's policies drive the same one as the electorate are too uninformed to realise every single homeowner who doesn't have a business in property loses out from rising prices no less than car or food buyers do.

People can only con you until you get the trick and then it's never possible again as everyone knows it's a con. And they can't replace it with another as they all work the same way, so once you know how a few are done all the rest are variations. Smoke and mirrors all do the same thing and can't do more than that. Assume unless it's clear and obvious nothing they tell you can be taken at face value. Soon you develop a sense to tell you what's worth checking or not, and if money is involved look to see who benefits ultimately. Banks borrow at 0.5%, people borrow at roughly the same rates regardless of base rate except for mortgage holders. Other loans are barely related to base rate so forget it, and means banks can bet on 1-100 odds where they are almost guaranteed to win, and are only worth taking when they borrow for less than the 1% profit they make on tiny wins. Then they borrow huge amounts to finance such quick deals and if the rate goes up then all their backlog of billions is paid off with far more as 0.5% of billions is extremely significant, so they keep the rate at bare minimum indefinitely now as otherwise they will be stuck with massive repayments most banks can't afford now, even if it just hits 1% as they overborrowed.

Bad laws also apply. Who is hurt by banning something? If criticising Islam or gay marriage only causes bad feeling then how can it be made illegal? Criticising something you don't like, even without a reason, isn't causing any direct harm (as in damage to person or property), and will only be illegal now if it damages your personal reputation by lying, but not by either personal opinion or telling the truth. Inciting violence causes harm and is also illegal, but saying you don't agree with something or don't like something is something protected by law in America by their constitution but not in Britain which can ban whatever they want. Never let anyone tell you what opinions are right or wrong as they are both based on preference or choice, and none can ever be better or worse, as they may be a great majority but if you don't think gay marriage is real marriage or want lots of immigration there are plenty of other countries who do agree with you.

Think for yourself and don't let anyone tell you it's wrong. Don't go with the crowd for a peaceful life, as if they are wrong and you know it you are as bad as them in doing so. If for example Britain had been asked if they wanted gay marriage before the parties were elected who brought it in (as many others were), then no one could complain whatever the decision, as both choices were equal, otherwise there couldn't be a vote as one would clearly be wrong. So if voting in or out of the EU, for gay marriage or a basic income is a yes/no preference, in a democracy we must accept the majority decision but cannot be forced to agree with it. But in Britain, without even being asked, the government brought in gay marriage, and anyone (which for all they know may also be the majority) who disagrees with it (not objecting to a legal gay partnership, only to using the sacred word marriage to describe it) is not only universally vilified but calls are made to make expressing such a view illegal. That means it would still be legal to have the view, they won't be erasing it, just to speak it in public. Of course, if they could make the view itself illegal as well they would, but until they can prove what your thoughts are it won't be possible. But allow one and the other could happen were it possible.

These skills can be applied in all areas of life as well. Discernment, trust, prioritising, deciding what's important or not, tracing rules down to why they are made and do they fulfil that function, all become second nature and the more who learn it the harder it will become to oppress the people as the audience will know the tricks the illusionists are using. As James Randi says, he is an illusionist as he says what he's doing looks real but isn't, but the government are cheats as they are creating an illusion but pretending it is real. But unlike magicians they do it so badly every single member of the audience can easily work out how they do it as unlike mgicians they aren't professionals and don't have the complex training (besides the weakly effective PR) and fancy equipment magicians do. PR is old hat and just uses old fashioned methods to manipulate those most susceptible (who are the majority) and make them immune to the appeals by their peers as they are taught to not trust anyone unqualified despite the only qualification required is knowledge.

Once you get it you get it, and it becomes so natural and obvious you wonder however you were fooled in the first place. That doesn't matter, as we all need to be conned once to see how it works and how to follow it back to its origins to stop it happening again. I gave many examples of the illusions in my last interview, and now you are learning the tools to spot every single one of them from those examples, and the formulas I am now applying which you can learn and use to undo the locks made by those who wish to exploit you rather than becoming a success honestly. Which is not only easier but leaves you with a better character and makes a better society. If you don't have the talent to do a job and have to fake it then do a job you are good at rather than take on a higher one where you have to lie and cheat to maintain it. It may work for you and the community of politicians or estate agents will normally protect each other from all but the worst accusations, but is that a way to live, like a parasite living off your hosts? Surely it's better for every person to win properly, as if you need to suck the life from someone else to do well you're actually just stealing it, whether or not you're caught? And if you're clever enough to make a career of stealing and not get caught you're clever enough to have a proper career.

I hope you have learnt principles for both the victims, who are nearly everyone, and advice to potential perpetrators, who may not have done as well in life as they wanted to, so for that extra push drop their ethics and take the bribe from the higher level of staff above you in parliament, or the police, or civil service, or education etc, to do as they say and you will be promoted. We know it both happens and is actually how most run. The higher you get the more people you have to figuratively allow to enter you from behind. We are not prostitutes, and giving up your mind is no better than giving up your body in return for rewards. The abandonment of personal morals for promotion is no better than the casting couch and worse as you are hurting others as well as demeaning yourself. It stains your character and is the same as cheating in a race or an exam. You have the medal in your possession, everyone else thinks you earned it, but you feel bad as you know you didn't, you stole it. Every scientist earning a single dollar from lying about global warming is dirty, and hurts people through inciting false taxes and travel restrictions. Zac Goldsmith, who joined the Conservative Party, wants to charge everyone extra to drive in London, something impossible to be accepted without the imaginary fear of causing global warming. The people are being conned into voting to wreck their own lives based on the fear of something even worse that can't happen as it's not even projected to possibly till at least 2100.

These are such crude cons it makes me weep inside to know most people are dumb enough to both accept them all as real (the sea level is rising at almost the same rate for 200 years of inches a century, although after ice ages it rises hundreds of feet) and fight people who try and explain they are wrong. This is the inverse of free speech, as these are not opinions, global warming and other memes like it are presented as facts, and dismissed with facts which prove they are incorrect on nearly every point. They begin with a few facts, ie CO2 has risen and it's warming, and the rest is bullshit, as I explained in my first interviews. I can disprove every single claim, not because I'm a scientist but a trained legal investigator. We always win as you don't need to be trained in anything to pick other professions' work apart with expert advice for the technical questions, which is now freely available by friendly experts online. In the end it's a jury trial, and the jury are always lay people with expert witnesses. The process is hundreds of years old and has very few exceptions to what can be tried.

You don't need to be qualified though, just aware, either through your own ability or being shown how, politics is not science and they are all amateurs as they are not required to be qualified in anything, and have access to every expert without paying for their services. So when Putin sends his scientists to investigate global warming, as he is not part of the global system, and does not pay for their services as they work for him already, what they find is not biased and have enough resources and qualifications to run the whole lot through the system from start to finish and whatever they find ought to fit with the truth. And if it doesn't then you assume they were bought off as they can't support their claims. And surprise surprise they agreed with me, it's not a problem and barely genuine. It makes no difference to Putin either way, he has the whole of Russia at his disposal, a few more carbon taxes make no odds either way, he has oil, gas and can support his citizens for centuries on the reserves, and if creating an artificial shortage to eke them out for longer and an artificial price from extra taxes is neither here nor there on the scale of things in Russia. After all, ultimately they would only be taxing themselves so wouldn't gain a penny as it wouldn't increase GDP as was just moving the same money around within the economy.

I hope you are like me, beginning to see the big picture here, especially if you have seen all my earlier interviews. Think for yourself, learn how to investigate, and no one can ever take you for a ride once enough people join you. Till then you can see through the tricks, and not be swayed by peer or state pressure to agree with global warming, stop expressing your unpopular views, or vote for low interest rates (were it on the table to vote for). And learn the difference between facts and opinions. Global warming is 100% factual and not connected to your politics or religion as it is all data based and that is neutral. Opinions are personal preference and all equal, just like each life is equal (but not the same). Therefore if 97% of people vote for gay marriage they still have no right to ban the 3% from saying they don't think it can be called marriage. You don't even have the right to make them explain why, they don't ask you so why should they be forced to justify their opinion as currently happens the whole time?

Put any other issue into the formula and it comes out the same. Interest rates and house prices are facts, economic arithmetic. Multiculturalism, EU membership and immigration are preferences, if you want to be run as a federal state, or even a world government, then if you actually understand what it will be like (which does need a degree level of knowledge to know), then fine if the majority learn enough to be informed and prefer it, we must go with the majority. But if people complain who maybe don't like being the minority where they were born, or having laws made by unelected EU commissioners then don't call them mental or bigoted as had each vote gone the other way then you would be on what is currently their side and wouldn't want to be treated like a pariah for your choice either. I think that covers every possible eventuality, and by keeping it as simple and concise as possible with a few representative accurate examples it will be enough for everyone to apply.